-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 728
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
resource group: support more mode for burstable #9044
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #9044 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 75.65% 76.24% +0.59%
==========================================
Files 332 468 +136
Lines 33902 71464 +37562
==========================================
+ Hits 25650 54491 +28841
- Misses 6056 13567 +7511
- Partials 2196 3406 +1210
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
defaultLoanCoefficient = 2 | ||
maxAssignTokens = math.MaxFloat64 / 1024 // assume max client connect is 1024 | ||
slotExpireTimeout = 10 * time.Minute | ||
defaultBurstLimitFactor = 8.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if this is not suitable for high rate limit settings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about 2 or 4? Maybe we need a logarithmic-like function rather than a simple multiplication?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, logarithmic-like is more reasonable.
Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <admin@liudos.us>
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Close #9057
What is changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Release note